KAIROS, Alternatives, CIDA and trouble with radical advocacy By Gerald M. Steinberg Published January 13, 2010    4 Comments

View story Email Comments To the Editor

The intense debate (and some crude political mudslinging) over government funding for KAIROS and Alternatives is indicative of a much wider discussion over the role of powerful civil society groups that combine radical political agendas with humanitarian aid. Like Canada, a number of European governments are also struggling with the problems posed by funding such activist organizations, and the outcome of the Canadian battle will have a much wider impact.

This dispute is the result of a process that began in the 1960s, when prime minister Pierre Trudeau created the Canadian International Development Agency and began providing large funding to non-governmental groups to be used for foreign assistance. This was a well-intentioned concept, based on the hope that NGOs with local connections would use this money to teach skills, build infrastructure, promote equality, and help millions in the developing world "pull themselves up by their bootstraps."

This approach has not shown many successes, in part due to endemic corruption and warfare, while the NGO-led aid and development process became highly politicized. The evolution is clearly illustrated in the case of KAIROS, a coalition of church groups, including the Anglican and Presbyterian churches and the Mennonite Central Committee, modeled on similar European frameworks, which also receive government support. Its leaders claim to affect "social change through advocacy, education and research programs in: ecological justice, economic justice, energy and extraction, human rights, just and sustainable livelihoods, and indigenous peoples."

This ideological rhetoric is reflected in the activities of KAIROS, both in Canada and abroad. To justify this agenda, officials argue that in order to end poverty and similar problems, the "political and economic roots" must be addressed. And for many, this means radical anti-capitalist, anti-Western, and often anti-democracy ideologies, with their support going to fringe opposition leaders, rebels and anti-government insurgents.

The activities of the Alternatives organization, which is based in Montreal and receives most of its money from Canadian taxpayers ($3.9 million out of $4.9 million) reflect the same hardcore ideological activism. In this case, instead of highlighting "humanitarian aid," the officials of this NGO explicitly acknowledge that they are "an international solidarity organization"—reflecting both a radical leftist ideological agenda and objectives.

For many years, the friction between government funding for ostensibly "non-governmental organizations" and these radical agendas was carefully protected from public scrutiny. Aid agency officials and the recipients of government funds often share political views, and there is very little accountability in the NGO world. When formal evaluations are made, they often fail to deal with the core activities or acknowledge the basic problems or reflect criticism, including the fact that in most cases, very little if anything is accomplished.

Equally problematic is the fact that some of the CIDA funds spent by these organizations are used within Canada for highly partisan advocacy instead of development work abroad. The money and energy used for political campaigns comes at the expense of building another school, operating a health clinic to immunize the population against disease, or creating jobs.

As a result, strident defence of these activities in the media and from some opposition MPs, coupled with attacks against attempts to reform CIDA, generally relies on claims made by the organizations themselves. In contrast, when independent research studies are published, they often point to misdirected NGO activism that contributes to the friction and violence in Africa, Afghanistan and other conflict regions, including the Middle East.

In the Arab-Israeli conflict, KAIROS and Alternatives are very active in promoting the Palestinian narrative. A KAIROS publication attacking "Christian Zionism" describes Zionism as an "ideology of empire, colonialism, and militarism." Like their radical colleagues, officials in these groups joined in one-sided condemnations of Israeli responses to Hamas rocket attacks. KAIROS co-ordinates much of the anti-Israel boycott and divestment movement in Canada.

Similarly, Alternatives was involved in "Israel Apartheid Week" activities, its website shows an obsession with attacking Israel, and the monthly supplements distributed with Le Devoir echo these themes. A June 2009 publication called on "international civil society organizations...to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era..."

The fierce ideological advocacy of Alternatives extends to issues such as "ecological imperialism" and campaigns in support of the hundreds of violent demonstrators arrested at the Copenhagen environmental summit. The website features political commentary such as Michael Moore's letter opposing US President Barack Obama's Afghanistan policy.

Such strident advocacy clearly is far removed from the humanitarian and development objectives that animated Trudeau's intentions with the creation of CIDA more than four decades ago. The expenditure of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars for radical advocacy is clearly counterproductive, and instead of silencing criticism, responsible leaders from all parties would be well advised to work together to find a better model.

Professor Gerald M. Steinberg teaches political science at Bar Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel, and heads NGO Monitor.

editor@embassymag.ca